The legacy of Colonialism, Apartheid and the often quoted story of the last 20 years have resulted in a country with an estimated 21 million South Africans left behind in our rural areas.

Some parts of South Africa experience relative socio – economic development in line with global patterns, and other parts are effectively being left behind.

It is safe to say that the human and natural resources of many rural parts of South Africa are simply not fully brought to the fore – and this to the detriment of especially the poor.

This plays a key part in the lack of inclusive and rapid economic growth required to take our country forward.

It is a chapter of this story we are hearing about that can be called “Still left behind”.

More specifically, honourable chair, the National Development Plan quite rightly identifies unemployment, including rural unemployment, as probably the single biggest problem South Africa faces today.

Unemployment not only affect our people materially but also destroys morale and hope – in itself an obstacle to overcome, even if economic opportunities present itself.

Nevertheless, this problem of rural underdevelopment and the negative story associated with it, overshadows another possibility –
a rural South Africa that can tell a story called “ brimming with opportunity and hope”.

Agriculture and agri-business, in the words of the NDP “as the primary economic activity in rural areas” can be one of the most potent job creators and has one of the highest ratios of job growth in relation to GDP growth of the country.

In other words it creates a lot of real, inclusive jobs if and when economic growth takes place.

To the DA Land Reform is seen as a missed opportunity of the past 20 years that can be regained if we take the lead and demonstrate by example.

Let me say more about what the NDP points out about the opportunities of land reform.

The NDP refers to 1,3 million households that are currently engaged in some form of agriculture.

If land reform and other rural development opportunities provide such  households with the means to improve its own productivity and commercial capacity, the NDP says that a huge difference can be made in the improvement of livlihoods and job creation.

More expansively, it identifies approximately 440 000 households that have the potential to raise its productivity and further expand employment to others.

Honourable members, this  will not happen without sensible policies and proper implementation of it.

The NDP – an overarching policy workshopped thoroughly with civil society and the public - goes further and suggests that the driver of Land Reform initiatives should be Land Rights Committees at a District Council level.

Such Land Rights committees according to the NDP should consist of all key stakeholders in land reform and, in the view of the DA, presents an ideal platform to close institutional voids, to generate win-win solutions, leverage existing capabilities of agriculture behind land reform and facilitate lasting economic partnerships and social compacts.

The NDP goes further and specifies how land should be acquired and what type of land should be looked at.

This honourable members, is what more than 90 percent of this house agreed to.

It is therefore amazing to see extraordinarily out of place chapters in this story that we are constantly being told about -Let’s call them the apocrative chapters .

We see policy proposals and laws emanating from this department, completely contradicting the NDP – that document that more than 90% of this house agreed to.

Agbare lede, die sogenaamde konsepbeleid “Die Versterking van die Regte van die wat die grond bewerk” is ‘n totale klug.

Hierdie swak geskryfde, teenstrydige dokument het die volgende swakhede:

    Dit is ongrondwetlik in ‘n aantal aspekte.
    Dit is moontlik strydig met kontrakreg en arbeidswetgewing
    Dit is ‘n wesenlike gevaar vir grondwaardes.

Hier is dit miskien wys om daarop te let dat die 2007 Wereld ekonomiese krisis ontketen is deur ‘n verswakking in grondwaardes wat uitgekring het na die res van die ekonomie.

89 miljard rand se skuld is vasgepen in die waarde van kommersiele landbou grond.

Vernietig die waarde van dit wat jy wil herverdeel en jy verdeel iets wat niks waarde het nie. 0 gedeel deur enige aantal begunstigdes bly gelyk aan nul.

    Dit beskryf ‘n geforseerde bedryfsmodel wat dit wat werk kniehalter, en dit wat nie werk nie, verhef tot die standaard.
    Dit is ‘n gevaar vir voedselsekuriteit.

Voedselsekuriteit word uiteindelik die beste gedien deur kospryse so laag as moontlik te hou – ‘n funksie van massaproduksie en kompetisie.

    Dit skrik nuwe beleggings af met ‘n gepaardgaande ernstige geleentheidskoste vir werkskepping en ekonomiese groei.
    Dit skep angs onder plaaswerkers wat nie seker is of hulle oor tyd hulle werk sal behou nie
    Om weer dit te beklemtoon – dit is heeltemal teenstrydig met die Nasionale ontwikkelingsplan en moet dit moet ontrek word.

This very same NDP makes specific mention of what actually needs to be done.

It points out additional opportunities for job creation in communal land areas and redistribution projects where beneficiaries, I quote are “properly supported” – close quote.

Honourable members, let’s unpack what the evidence suggests about what proper support means.

It is common cause, even in the department itself, that land reform has dismally failed.

Some reasons are, a disturbing vacancy rate, unclear measurement of outputs rather than outcomes and slow progress with the required geospatial and cadastral services – itself overdue for a forensic investigation.

More importantly, the wrong business model – or organisation of land reform projects – is not only being used but actively kept alive.

Billions have been lost over the years that could have purhased anything between a third to a half of commercial agricultural land.

Nowadays, a success rate of only 27% of land reform projects is celebrated as if it is a success.

I frankly hang my head in shame as a South African.

This chapter of the story to tell should be called, “Who are we trying to fool?”.

Worse, this so-called success rate  is probably artificial since it comes on the back of recapitalisation funding, in other words bail-out money for existing failures.

On top of it all, we see a nearly puerile Marxist – the philosopher, not the comedian – fascination with co-operatives as a start-up model for new agricultural ventures.

The department’s own figures suggest an 80 to over 90 percent mortality or failure rate for this type of business model.

Honourable Chair,

By far the most successful model for new beneficiaries to gain ownership and transfer knowledge in the commercial farming sector, is the DA’s  prefered system of share equity schemes, where beneficiaries over a sensible period obtain ownership of land and agricultural assets.

Thus the dangers of a start-up phase of a new business is avoided and proper transfer of knowledge can take place.

The DA-led Western Cape government have demonstrated an up to 80% success rate with this approach and we urge national government and provincial governments elsewhere to stop their shortsighted boycott of ideas from the Western Cape.

The DA also supports the rapid expansion of individual property rights.

Let’s call this chapter of the story that we are hearing about ,“Not doing the obvious thing that works in the rest of the world”.

Rather than treat private property as the enemy, and replace an unhealthy concentration of ownership in our economy with another monopoly- that of an inefficient state – real redress should be private property expanded to as many people as possible.

The Gauteng Farmer Settlement Programme, once the flagship of Land Reform efforts in the province, has nothing to show for it except for demoralised farmers and entrepreneurs, like my friend Thabo Mokone from Mohlakeng, who lost everything.

The ultimate reason why they failed is that they could not break the monopoly the government had on the credit, markets and support that they could access.

That type of monopoly support is always dependent on the priorities of a bureaucracy and politicians, rather than that of the farm.

Without individual property rights banks did not have collateral against which they could lend and, as any businessman knows, without the ability to use debt or equity no business can expand beyond a survivalist stage.

Neither of the two are possible with the ANC’s model, and beneficiaries will forever be locked into dependence on the state.

Similarly, South Africans living on communal land are locked into the same situation since they cannot utilise the most basic asset in agriculture – the land – to empower themselves.

If everyone owns everything, then nobody owns anything.

The 440 000 households referred to in the NDP with the potential to expand, will be unable to do so without the ability to raise debt or equity – because very simply, they do not own the land they are living on.

And this is why, honourable chair, up to 50 percent of South Africa’s best agricultural potential lies fallow and some of the poorest in South Africa are living on some of the richest soil.

To illustrate, in 1997 the Agricultural Research Council demonstated that with basic investment up to a 25-fold increase is possible in production on communal land – a formula for genuine job creation, enormous economic growth and sustained food security.

These South Africans are dependent on the largesse of traditional leaders, themselves entrenched by colonial and Apartheid systems, and social grants locking our fellow citizens into dependency on the South African government.

Perhaps we should call this Chapter of the the story “Locking our supporters into electoral bondage to the ANC”.

Any discussion of Land Reform will not be complete without a proper discussion of one of its other legs.

Land Restitution has been one of the founding principles of our democracy and represents some of its earliest legislation.

The DA, a party that believes in the rule of law and human rights, regards restitution as a fundemental act of justice.

It represents redress, healing and a foundation for a shared future.

However, this chapter of the story we were told about, has an ugly, vicious side.

With many claims still unresolved, this government chose to celebrate the centenary of the odious 1913 Land Act with sufterfuge, smoke and mirrors.

Despite huge fanfare reopening Land Claims to South Africans close to an election, and in the process accusing the DA of not supporting Land Restitution because of our opposition to this act, it is now clear that the DA should have been listened to and our amendments to the Act supported.

It is clear from the medium term expenditure framework and budgets of this department that this government never had any intention of truly dealing with the estimated 397000 land claims we can expect.

As Amilcar Cabral, one of the ANC’s own favourite philosopers said – open quote: “Tell no lies …claim no easy victories”, Close quote.

This Act should be reconsidered on many levels, because it pretends to pursue justice, but will not deliver justice  and it creates insecurity because of how long restitution will take. Justice delayed is Justice denied!

Honourable chair, The DA has announced recently that it will take ownership of the NDP and pilot its Land Reform suggestions in the Western Cape – where a succesful chapter of South Africa’s story is being written.

We challenge other provincial governments to do the same. Let’s see in deeds who truly cares about land reform the most.

Let’s write a new chapter called “Showing the world how land reform can work for all of us”!